everyone assumes so because i'm aggressive

i think gender is oppressive and thus reject it, and i wouldn't consider myself feminine or masculine but others would obviously disagree considering even people on raddle gender me. it's part of the annoying binary in people's brains where aggressive / chaotic = masculine and tranquil / peaceful = feminine. and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy because this societal pressure is what gets some people to embody either a feminine or a masculine persona when they might not have put themselves in that box without that pressure

there's also this weird expectation where if you don't go out of your way to dress, groom and otherwise style yourself as feminine, you must id as masculine. some people just don't give a shit about how we appear to others

I see your point but idk that i'd want to make an essay about rejecting struggle into an essay that mounts yet another struggle against dead and dying anarchists

my perspective has always been if it's not anti authority, it's not anarchy even if it calls itself that. so if i'm not harsh on green anarchy it's because to me green anarchy isn't defined by people who may or may not be good anarchists, but by the principles of anarchy

edit: did it anyway

That being said, there are certainly some shit green anarchists out there just like there are some shit red anarchists, orange anarchists, and so on. Anarchy shouldn't ever be confused with some of the people who lay claim to the label, or we would all have to abandon the anarchist philosophy because of anarcho-capitalists. There are even some generally good anarchists who still maintain some bad ideas, like certain aging anprims who haven't managed to move past the old "noble savage" trope.

There are also some unknowledgeable people who choose to identify with green anarchy without having much of an understanding of what anarchy entails. Some of these people, feeling alienated by industrial society, were drawn to vague anti-industrial politics (usually due to Kaczynski) and now loosely identify as green anarchists, without having read enough about anarchy to realize how completely unforgiving it is when it comes to hierarchy, domination and oppression. They narrowly focus in on the anti-civ aspect of anarchy, which really has very little use without the broader anti-authority aspects. Just like baby red anarchists, baby green anarchists will soon either switch to a less demanding philosophy when realizing how high the learning curve is, or will in time develop into decent anarchists.

The reason properly-informed green anarchists don't aim to construct a program to force our principles on the world is because we fully believe in anarchy. Coercing people to live the way we live would instantly disqualify us from being anarchists.

hoping it doesn't break the flow of the essay

I might. The thing the essay takes from him the most is embracing an anti-left perspective rather than the post-left half measure. I've seen him say post-left is meaningless. But at the same time I call the anprim term racist which a lot of old timers would no doubt see as an expression of leftism.

I mean zerzan is the last surviving member of the anprim moment and hasn't had a new idea for ages. Perlman and Moore died decades ago. Anarchy has moved on. 2020s anti-civ is a lot more nuanced than 1980s anarcho-primitivism. Doesn't make sense to keep the current green anarchy sphere beholden to the dead and dying.

He for sure wouldn't appreciate me calling the word 'primitivist' racist in the full text.

That essay more than any of my others has been a giant struggle to communicate through. It took so much editing to try and get my points across

Communication is so hard

Also seems to think I'm arguing against anti-civ for some reason. Maybe because I said I'm a green anarchist who doesn't identify as a primitivist. But what I was arguing is that Killjoy is 100% anti-civ and is just afraid to call it that because she doesn't want to piss off leftists and get cancelled.

Zerzan mentions my new essay at 27:10